INTERRUPTIONS PRODUCED BY THE MOLLUCAN STUDENTS IN THE FELLOWSHIP MEETING | Silalebit | Kta Kita 426 748 1 SM
INTERRUPTIONS PRODUCED BY THE MOLLUCAN
STUDENTS IN THE FELLOWSHIP MEETING
Silalebit, M. A.1 and Wijaya, H. P. S.2
1,2
English Department, Faculty of Letters, Petra Christian University, Siwalankerto 121-131, Surabaya
60236, East Java, INDONESIA
E-mails: mercy_silalebit@yahoo.co.id; hennypsw@petra.ac.id
Abstract
This thesis is about a study of the interruptions produced by the Moluccan students in a fellowship meeting,
consisting of fifteen students as the respondents, who are divided into two: the chairperson and the members.
The purposes of the study are to know the tokens and the functions of interruptions used by the chairperson
and the members of the meeting by considering social role as the social factor. The writer applies the theory
of interruptions by Tannen (1990) and Wardhaugh (1985) as the main theories. Besides, the writer also uses
the theory of social role by Johnstone (2008) and the theory of discourse markers by Schiffrin (2003) as the
supporting theories. The writer used qualitative approach to conduct this research. The writer discovered that
the chairperson produced more tokens (19) than the members (13). Moreover, the writer found that the
respondents produced Ambonese tokens, such as “Hiii”, “Weee”, “Seng”, “Eee”, and Suroboyoan tokens,
such as “Lho” and “Itulho”. Both the chairperson and the members produced “other” functions the most with
58.75% and 63.81%. In conclusion, social role influenced the interruptions and their functions, and the
number of tokens produced by the participants.
Keywords: Interruptions, Mollucan, Meeting, Social role
Conversation is “a social activity, one that always involves two or more people”
(Wardhaugh, 1985, p.49). Conversation is therefore a cooperative endeavor. “Each time someone
gets involved with another person, someone must consider him or her” (p.2). To be cooperative,
someone must know the basic principle of turn-taking. The basic principle of turn-taking in a
conversation is that one person speaks at a time (p.148). However, sometimes someone interrupts
what others are saying. Tannen (1990, p.192) stated that “interruption is a violation in showing no
consideration for someone else’s right to talk and is an effort to dominate the conversation”. To
interrupt other speakers, some expressions are produced by someone, such as Excuse me!, Pardon
me!, Hold on!, etc. These expressions indicate that someone has some reasons why he or she
interrupts the first speaker (Wardhaugh, 1985, pp.151-152). Moreover, discourse markers as
“sequentially dependent elements that brackets units of talk” such as I mean, y’know, oh, like, and
others (Schiffrin, 2003, p.57) are very important as contextualization cues (Johnstone, 2008, p.238)
to aid the speaker in holding the floor or to preface a response or a reaction (Muller, 2005, p.9).
Regarding the theories above, the writer is interested in studying about interruptions and
tokens which occur in the meeting of Mollucan Students Fellowship in Petra Christian University
because the writer wants to know how those Mollucans interrupt one another by using Ambonese
as their language in the meeting since in the meeting the participants tend to compete with others to
give their opinions. The writer is triggered to know whether the participants might produce their
typical tokens in doing interruptions. There are fifteen students as the participants who study Petra
Christian University from various batches. The chairperson is from batch 2009, and most of the
members are from batch 2008-2012. In addition, it challenges the writer to focus on social roles as
the participants are expected to know what roles they should adopt themselves. The situation may
affect the language they should use as the participants need to consider their social roles in a
meeting, especially when they want to interrupt others.
This study has four purposes. The first purpose is to know what are the tokens used by the
chairperson of Mollucan Students Fellowship to interrupt the members in the meeting. The second
is to investigate the functions of the interruptions used by the chairperson ofMollucan Students
204
Fellowship. The third is the tokens used by the members of Mollucan Students Fellowship to
interrupt the chairperson in the meeting. The last purpose is to know the functions of the
interruptions used by the the members of Mollucan Students Fellowship.
Interruption
“Interruption is an intrusion, a trampling on someone else’s right to the floor, an attempt to
dominate” (Tannen, 1990, p.189).Tannen also stated that “interruption is a violation of someone’s
speaking rights” (p.192). In other words, “Interruption is a violation that happens in conversation as
a way of someone to dominate it. Interruption can be determined by knowing what the interrupter
is trying to do” (p.190). Here is the example of an interruption:
H: I think that
W:
Do you want some more salad?
In the next section, the writer will explain the functions of interruptions according to the
theory of Wardhaugh (1985).
Functions of Interruptions
There are several functions of interruptions. First of all, someone interrupts other to “seek
clarification concerning something that is being said” (Wardhaugh, 1985, p.151). This interruption
happens because the interrupter sometimes gets lost or does not understand the conversation, or the
interrupter is distracted by a noise.
Secondly, interruption is done in order to correct what the first speaker is saying.
Correcting is considered “as a kind of challenge” because it “seems to question both the speaker’s
veracity and his or her very right to speak” (p.152). Another function of interruption is disagreeing,
which is “to deny or reject some point that the speaker made” (p.152). Moreover, an interruption
happens in order to complete what someone is saying (p.154). This interruption can be done by
finishing the sentence.
The last function of interruption is ending a conversation (p.156). The interrupter pretends
the signal that the previous speaker gives, which is usually a silence, but the interrupter ignores it.
Discourse Markers
To interrupt other speakers, the interrupter might directly cut the conversation by
producing tokens or markers as the cues for the interlocutor. Discourse markers could be
considered as “a set of linguistic expressions comprised of members of world classes as varied as
conjunction (and, but, or), interjections (oh), adverbs (now, then), and lexicalized phrases (y’know,
I mean) (Schiffrin, 2003, p.57). Schiffrin (p.36) also stated that “discourse markers have functions
in cognitive (ability to represent concept and idea), expressive (to display personal identities, to
convey attitude and perform an action), social (to display social identities, to negotiate relationship
between self and other) and textual domains (to organize forms and convey meaning)”. Marker
well can be used to give response to anything in talk. Or and so are turn-transition devices to mark
potential participation transitions. (p.316). According to Stenstrom (1994, p.63), discourse markers
are used “to organize the turn, hold the turn, and to mark boundaries in discourse”. Moreover,
discourse markers are used to aid the speaker in holding the floor (Muller, 2005, p.9).
There are several discouse markers in Ambonese according to Tjia (1992). “Seng” and
“Tar” are negative markers which are usually used to deny something (p.48). Conjunctions in
Ambonese are “abis itu” (after that), “deng” (and, with), “tarus” and “lantas” which have similar
meaning with “and then”, “tagalitu” (therefore), “lastelaste” (finally), “jadi” (so), and “adaharos”
(no wonder) (pp.58-59). Markers “mar” (p.51) is also a conjunction in Ambonese, taken from
Dutch language “maar”, which has same meaning with “but”. “Or” in Ambonese is “atau/atou” or
“ka”. There are also phatic markers (Kridalaksana, 1986 in Tjia, 1992, pp.54-57) in Ambonese
whose functions are to start, hold, and stress the conversation between the speaker and the
participants, such as “to” which is similar with “kan?” in Bahasa Indonesia or “right?” in English.
“La” in the beginning or the middle of a sentence means “whereas”, while “la” in the last of the
205
sentence has the closest meaning to “ya?” or “right”. “Ee” in Ambonese is used to show the
intensity in the sentence, such as “Paleng manis ee” or “It is really sweet”.
Social Role
The relationships which people have with each other when they are interacting are actually
negotiable, and they will create roles as the situation or the discourse make claim to equality,
inequality, solidarity, or detachment (Johnstone, 2008, p.139). People create roles for one another
and reinforce the difference between roles as they speak in ways their roles require (p.141). In
some situations, a person finds his or herself in more than one role which means that he or she will
have to negotiate about the language he or she has to use (p.140). For example, a mother who
works as a teacher will have to negotiate her language by considering her role since she has to
teach her daughter who is also one of her students. Thus, speakers assign roles to other participants,
or “position” through the way they talk and the way they categorize their audiences.
METHODS
In this research, the writer used qualitative approach. The key instrument of this research
was the writer herself. The source of data of this study was all the dialogue lines spoken by all of
the participants in the meeting. The data of this research were the interruptions and the tokens
which were produced by all of the participants in the meeting of Mollucan Students Fellowship in
Petra Christian University. The writer applied several steps in collecting the data. First, the writer
recorded the meeting once, which was on September 10th, 2012 in order to get the data. Second, the
writer watched the recording in order to understand the plot of the meeting. Next, she transcribed
the dialogue lines which occurred in the meeting. Then, the writer gave the numbering system of
the data since she would differentiate the interruptions spoken by the chairperson and the members.
Therefore, she applied two digits numbering system: 1.1, it indicates that the data was spoken by
the chairperson and the first interruption. At last, the writer began analyzing the data.
The writer used three tables (Table 1., Table 2., and Table 3.). Table 1. illustrated the
interruptions spoken by each participant.
Table 1. The Analysis of Interruptions Produced by the Chairperson/Members*
The Functions of Interruption
No.
Interruption
Translation
Note:
Comp. : Completing
D
: Disagreeing
CR
: Correcting
Token
s
SC
EC
Analysis
SC
Comp
D
EC
CR
Others
: Seeking Clarification
: Ending Conversation
The writer classified and analyzed the functions of interruption based on the theory
proposed by Wardhaugh (1985), and mentioned the tokens which occurred in the meeting based on
the supporting theory proposed by Tjia (1992). The table would be applied for the interruptions
produced by the chairperson and the members. Table 2. consists of the percentage of occurrences
of the functions of interruptions:
Table 2. The Percentage of the Functions of Interruptions Produced by the
Chairperson/Members
206
Percentage of Occurrences
(%)
The Function of
Interruption
No.
1.
Seeking Clarification
2.
Correcting
3.
Completing
4.
Disagreeing
5.
Ending Conversation
6.
Others
Total percentage
To calculate the percentage of each function of interruption, the writer applied the formula
as follows:
The frequency of each function of interruption
A =
X 100%
Total frequency of interruption done by the chairperson
Table 3. to summarize the percentage of tokens produced by the chairperson or the
members.
Table 3. The Percentage of Tokens Produced by the Chairperson/Members
No.
Percentage of
Occurrences
(%)
Token
Total percentage
In calculating the percentage of each token, the writers also applied the same formula as
calculating the percentage of each interruption.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The Tokens Used by the Chairperson to Interrupt the Members
The writer found out that there were 19 (nineteen) kinds of tokens which were produced by
the chairperson in the meeting. The details of the findings about the tokens could be seen in the
following table:
Table 4. The Percentage of Tokens Produced by the Chairperson
No.
1
2
3
Percentage of
Occurrences
(%)
Token
Hiii
Iyo/Iya
Seng
17.3%
15.4%
11.53%
207
4
Jang/Jangan
5
Oh
6
Tapi
7
Yang
8
Ssssst!
9
Sabar/Sabar dolo
10
Ha!
11
Jadi
12
Weee
13
Kayaknya
14
Lalu
15
Kalo
16
Eee
17
Apa ni
18
Lho
19
Kan
Total frequency
5.8%
5.8%
5.8%
3.8%
3.8%
3.8%
3.8%
1.92%
1.92%
1.92%
1.92%
1.92%
1.92%
1.92%
1.92%
1.92%
100 %
The findings showed that the tokens used the most by the chairperson are “Hiii” with the
total frequencies 17.3%. “Iyo/Iya” is the second most popular tokens produced by the chairperson
with the total frequencies 15,4%, and the third is “Seng” with 11.53%. The least used tokens are
“Jang/Jangan”, “Oh”, and “Tapi” which have the same percentages, 5.8%. The second least are
“Yang”, “Ssssst!”, “Sabar/Sabar dolo”, and “Ha!” with 3.8%, and “Jadi”, “Weee”, “Kayaknya”,
“Lalu”, “Kalo”, “Eee”, “Apa ni”, “Lho”, and “Kan” are tokens used by the chairperson with the
lowest frequencies, 1.92%.
The Functions of the Interruptions Used by the Chairperson of Mollucan Students
Fellowship
There were the interruptions produced by the chairperson in which mostly are “other
functions” with 58.75%, and the least are “seeking clarification” and “correcting” with 5% each.
The details of the findings about the functions of the interruption and the percentage could be seen
in the following table:
Table 5. The Percentage of the Functions of Interruptions Produced by the
Chairperson
No.
Percentage of Occurrences
(%)
The Function of
Interruption
1.
Others
58.75%
2.
Completing
15%
3.
Disagreeing
4.
Seeking Clarification
5.
Correcting
6.
Ending Conversation
Total percentage
8.75%
6.25%
6.25%
5%
100%
208
“Other” functions of interruptions consist of “Making conclusion”, “Making decision”,
“Giving information”, “Taking the floor”, “Giving comment”, and “Agreeing”. The token which
was used by the chairperson in “Making Conclusion” was “Jadi”. There were three tokens which
were produced by the chairperson in interruption to make decision, such as “Oh”, “Kalo”, “Seng”,
and “Lalu”, and “Ha!”. The chairperson produced tokens such as “Hiii”, “Weee”, “Kayaknya”,
“Kan”, and “Lho” to interrupt the members in giving information. The tokens which occurred in
taking the floor were “Sabar dolo”, “Hiii”, and “Eee”. To interrupt the member(s) in giving
comment, the chairperson produced the tokens, such as “Hiii”.
In interrupting the member(s) in agreeing, the chairperson produced only two tokens but it
had similar meaning, which were “Iyo” and “Iya” (“Yes”). Morever, when the chairperson
interrupted the member(s) to complete what member(s)’ saying, she only produced one token,
“Tapi” or “But”. The tokens which were produced to interrupt the member(s) when the chairperson
disagreed were “Seng”, “Jangan”, and “Tapi”. Also, the chairperson interrupted the member(s)
using token “yang” and “Hiii” to seek clarification. In correcting the member(s), the chairperson
produced tokens, such as “Maksudnya” and “Tapi”. Two tokens were usually produced by the
chairperson in interrupting the member(s) to end conversation, such as “Sssst!” and “Heee!”.
The Tokens Used by the Members to Interrupt the Chairperson
The writer found out that there were thirteen kinds of tokens which were produced by the
members in the meeting. The details of the findings about the tokens could be seen in the following
table:
Table 6. The Percentage of Tokens Produced by the Members
No.
Percentage of
Occurrences
(%)
Token
1
Seng
2
Hiii
3
Oh
4
Yang
5
Iya/Iyo
6
Wee
7
Berarti
8
Lalu
9
Itu lho
10
Jadi
11
Tapi
12
Maksudnya
13
Eee
Total Percentage
17.9%
14.3%
14.3%
10.7%
10.7%
7.14%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
100 %
The findings showed that the token used the most by the members is “Seng” with the total
frequencies 17.9%. “Hiii” and “Oh” are the second most popular token produced by the members
with the total frequencies 14.3%, and the third are “Yang” and “Iya/Iyo” with 10.7%. The least
used token are “Berarti”, “Lalu”, “Itu lho”, “Jadi”, “Tapi”, “Maksudnya”, and “Eee” with 3.6%.
The Functions of the Interruptions Used by the Members of Mollucan Students Fellowship
The interruption mostly used by the member(s) is “Other” functions with 63.81%, and the
least is “Disagreeing” with percentage 3.44%. “Ending Conversation” did not happen in the
interruptions produced by the member (s). The details of the findings about the functions of the
interruption and the percentage could be seen in the following table:
209
Table 7. The Percentage of the Functions of Interruptions Produced by the Members
No.
The Function of
Interruption
Percentage of Occurrences
(%)
1.
Others
63.81%
2.
Completing
15.51%
3.
Seeking Clarification
8.62%
4.
Correcting
8.62%
5.
Diagreeing
3.44%
Total Percentage
100%
Other functions of interruptions produced by the member(s) are giving information, joking,
giving comment, giving suggestion, and agreeing. When the member(s) interrupted the chairperson
to give information, he/she produced tokens, such as “Oh”, “Lalu”, and “Hiii”. When joking, the
member(s) produced token, such as “Seng”. The token which was produced by the member(s) to
give comment was “Iyo”. In addition, the tokens which were produced by the member(s) to give
suggestion were “Hiii”, “Tapi”, and “Maksudnya”. The tokens which were occurred in the meeting
to agree with the chairperson were “Iyo”, “Jadi”, and “Oh”.
In completing the utterances of the chairperson, the member(s) used token “Weee”.
Meanwhile, “Berarti”, “Eee”, “Yang” were the tokens which were produced by the member(s) in
seeking clarification. The member(s) produced tokens, such as “Seng” and “Iyo” to interrupt the
chairperson to correct what she said previously. The member(s) produced only one token, which
was “Seng” to show his/her disagreement toward the chairperson’s statement.
Interpretation of Overall Findings
The tokens which were produced by the chairperson were more various than the
member(s). It can be interpreted that these different numbers and various tokens occurred because
it was affected by the social role which the chairperson has. The chairperson was the one who
controlled the turn-taking in the meetings because her role was higher than the members. It means
that she had more power to talk, especially to interrupt the members. She had more power to talk or
interrupt; therefore, she produced more various tokens compared to the members.
The variety of tokens and language (Ambonese) which were produced by both the
chairperson and the members because both parties were in less formal group discussion and they
have the same ethnicity which made the mother tongue (Ambonese as the main language) come up
in the discussion. However, tokens such as “Lho” and “Itu lho” are actually not typical Ambonese
tokens but they occurred in the meeting. It might happen because that the participants are
influenced by the language where they are living now, Surabaya.
In addition, the findings showed that one token could be used to interrupt in any function.
Token “Oh” could be used to make decision, give information, correct the previous utterance, and
agree with what the previous speaker said. Token “Hiii” could be used in some functions, such as
giving information, giving comments, and seeking clarification. “Jangan” or “Jang” were tokens
used to interrupt other participants in order to show disagreement and give comments.
The writer interpreted that the “Other” functions of interruption done by the chairperson
were different from the member(s) because it was also influenced by the different social roles
between two of them. The chairperson produced “Making decision”, “Making conclusion”,
“Taking the floor”, even “Ending Conversation” as the functions of the interruptions because the
chairperson had more power than the member(s) in the meeting. On the other hand, the member(s)
produced “Giving suggestion” and “Joking”. Also, they did not produce “ending conversation”
when interrupting the chairperson. It can be because their roles as members influenced them to
210
have less control than the chairperson. Instead of taking the floor or ending the conversation, the
member(s) interrupted the chairperson to give suggestion which means that the member(s) was
being supportive or cooperative toward the chairperson. Both parties mostly produced supportive
interruptions, apart from “taking the floor” and “ending conversation” produced by the chairperson.
It might happen because the majority of the participants in the meeting are females. According to
Coates (1996) cited in Ersoy (2008, p.21), female speakers “generally tend to want connection with
others, and to feel close through getting and giving information, emphaty, and support in
conversation”. Since most of the participants are females, they tend to be supportive by showing
their agreements and elaborating the conversation in the meeting which is in line with the theory of
Coates (1996).
CONCLUSION
From the explanation above, the writer concludes that social role influences the
chairperson to produce more various tokens to use in interrupting in order to hold the floor while
the members had fewer tokens to use in interrupting the chairperson. From the three highest
functions of interruptions produced by the chairperson and the members, both parties showed the
attitude of being supportive when interrupting each others as it is in line with the theory of Coates
(1996) cited in Ersoy (2008, p.21). The writer suggests that other students can conduct a similar
research with different object of investigation as the comparison for this study. The writer suggests
a research on a study of discourse markers in interruptions with different social group and gender.
In this case, there will be a finding about which gender with what discourse markers and functions
will be used in doing interruption.
Hopefully, this research will give another contribution for readers in understanding the
functions of interruptions which were produced by the Mollucan students in the fellowship
meeting. The writer also hopes that this research would be useful for further research in the
different contexts and situations.
REFERENCES
Ersoy, S. (2008).Men compete, women collaborate. Kristianstad: Kristianstad University
Heritage, J. and Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action. Malden: Blackwell Publishing
Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse analysis. Malden: Blackwell Publishing
Muller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing Co
Schiffrin, D. (2003). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Stenstrom, A. (1994). An introduction to spoken interaction. London: Longman
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand. New York: Quill
Tjia, J. (1992). Cakalele: Maluku Research Journal Vol. 3. Manoa: University of Hawaii
Wardhaugh, R. (1985). How conversation works. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
211
STUDENTS IN THE FELLOWSHIP MEETING
Silalebit, M. A.1 and Wijaya, H. P. S.2
1,2
English Department, Faculty of Letters, Petra Christian University, Siwalankerto 121-131, Surabaya
60236, East Java, INDONESIA
E-mails: mercy_silalebit@yahoo.co.id; hennypsw@petra.ac.id
Abstract
This thesis is about a study of the interruptions produced by the Moluccan students in a fellowship meeting,
consisting of fifteen students as the respondents, who are divided into two: the chairperson and the members.
The purposes of the study are to know the tokens and the functions of interruptions used by the chairperson
and the members of the meeting by considering social role as the social factor. The writer applies the theory
of interruptions by Tannen (1990) and Wardhaugh (1985) as the main theories. Besides, the writer also uses
the theory of social role by Johnstone (2008) and the theory of discourse markers by Schiffrin (2003) as the
supporting theories. The writer used qualitative approach to conduct this research. The writer discovered that
the chairperson produced more tokens (19) than the members (13). Moreover, the writer found that the
respondents produced Ambonese tokens, such as “Hiii”, “Weee”, “Seng”, “Eee”, and Suroboyoan tokens,
such as “Lho” and “Itulho”. Both the chairperson and the members produced “other” functions the most with
58.75% and 63.81%. In conclusion, social role influenced the interruptions and their functions, and the
number of tokens produced by the participants.
Keywords: Interruptions, Mollucan, Meeting, Social role
Conversation is “a social activity, one that always involves two or more people”
(Wardhaugh, 1985, p.49). Conversation is therefore a cooperative endeavor. “Each time someone
gets involved with another person, someone must consider him or her” (p.2). To be cooperative,
someone must know the basic principle of turn-taking. The basic principle of turn-taking in a
conversation is that one person speaks at a time (p.148). However, sometimes someone interrupts
what others are saying. Tannen (1990, p.192) stated that “interruption is a violation in showing no
consideration for someone else’s right to talk and is an effort to dominate the conversation”. To
interrupt other speakers, some expressions are produced by someone, such as Excuse me!, Pardon
me!, Hold on!, etc. These expressions indicate that someone has some reasons why he or she
interrupts the first speaker (Wardhaugh, 1985, pp.151-152). Moreover, discourse markers as
“sequentially dependent elements that brackets units of talk” such as I mean, y’know, oh, like, and
others (Schiffrin, 2003, p.57) are very important as contextualization cues (Johnstone, 2008, p.238)
to aid the speaker in holding the floor or to preface a response or a reaction (Muller, 2005, p.9).
Regarding the theories above, the writer is interested in studying about interruptions and
tokens which occur in the meeting of Mollucan Students Fellowship in Petra Christian University
because the writer wants to know how those Mollucans interrupt one another by using Ambonese
as their language in the meeting since in the meeting the participants tend to compete with others to
give their opinions. The writer is triggered to know whether the participants might produce their
typical tokens in doing interruptions. There are fifteen students as the participants who study Petra
Christian University from various batches. The chairperson is from batch 2009, and most of the
members are from batch 2008-2012. In addition, it challenges the writer to focus on social roles as
the participants are expected to know what roles they should adopt themselves. The situation may
affect the language they should use as the participants need to consider their social roles in a
meeting, especially when they want to interrupt others.
This study has four purposes. The first purpose is to know what are the tokens used by the
chairperson of Mollucan Students Fellowship to interrupt the members in the meeting. The second
is to investigate the functions of the interruptions used by the chairperson ofMollucan Students
204
Fellowship. The third is the tokens used by the members of Mollucan Students Fellowship to
interrupt the chairperson in the meeting. The last purpose is to know the functions of the
interruptions used by the the members of Mollucan Students Fellowship.
Interruption
“Interruption is an intrusion, a trampling on someone else’s right to the floor, an attempt to
dominate” (Tannen, 1990, p.189).Tannen also stated that “interruption is a violation of someone’s
speaking rights” (p.192). In other words, “Interruption is a violation that happens in conversation as
a way of someone to dominate it. Interruption can be determined by knowing what the interrupter
is trying to do” (p.190). Here is the example of an interruption:
H: I think that
W:
Do you want some more salad?
In the next section, the writer will explain the functions of interruptions according to the
theory of Wardhaugh (1985).
Functions of Interruptions
There are several functions of interruptions. First of all, someone interrupts other to “seek
clarification concerning something that is being said” (Wardhaugh, 1985, p.151). This interruption
happens because the interrupter sometimes gets lost or does not understand the conversation, or the
interrupter is distracted by a noise.
Secondly, interruption is done in order to correct what the first speaker is saying.
Correcting is considered “as a kind of challenge” because it “seems to question both the speaker’s
veracity and his or her very right to speak” (p.152). Another function of interruption is disagreeing,
which is “to deny or reject some point that the speaker made” (p.152). Moreover, an interruption
happens in order to complete what someone is saying (p.154). This interruption can be done by
finishing the sentence.
The last function of interruption is ending a conversation (p.156). The interrupter pretends
the signal that the previous speaker gives, which is usually a silence, but the interrupter ignores it.
Discourse Markers
To interrupt other speakers, the interrupter might directly cut the conversation by
producing tokens or markers as the cues for the interlocutor. Discourse markers could be
considered as “a set of linguistic expressions comprised of members of world classes as varied as
conjunction (and, but, or), interjections (oh), adverbs (now, then), and lexicalized phrases (y’know,
I mean) (Schiffrin, 2003, p.57). Schiffrin (p.36) also stated that “discourse markers have functions
in cognitive (ability to represent concept and idea), expressive (to display personal identities, to
convey attitude and perform an action), social (to display social identities, to negotiate relationship
between self and other) and textual domains (to organize forms and convey meaning)”. Marker
well can be used to give response to anything in talk. Or and so are turn-transition devices to mark
potential participation transitions. (p.316). According to Stenstrom (1994, p.63), discourse markers
are used “to organize the turn, hold the turn, and to mark boundaries in discourse”. Moreover,
discourse markers are used to aid the speaker in holding the floor (Muller, 2005, p.9).
There are several discouse markers in Ambonese according to Tjia (1992). “Seng” and
“Tar” are negative markers which are usually used to deny something (p.48). Conjunctions in
Ambonese are “abis itu” (after that), “deng” (and, with), “tarus” and “lantas” which have similar
meaning with “and then”, “tagalitu” (therefore), “lastelaste” (finally), “jadi” (so), and “adaharos”
(no wonder) (pp.58-59). Markers “mar” (p.51) is also a conjunction in Ambonese, taken from
Dutch language “maar”, which has same meaning with “but”. “Or” in Ambonese is “atau/atou” or
“ka”. There are also phatic markers (Kridalaksana, 1986 in Tjia, 1992, pp.54-57) in Ambonese
whose functions are to start, hold, and stress the conversation between the speaker and the
participants, such as “to” which is similar with “kan?” in Bahasa Indonesia or “right?” in English.
“La” in the beginning or the middle of a sentence means “whereas”, while “la” in the last of the
205
sentence has the closest meaning to “ya?” or “right”. “Ee” in Ambonese is used to show the
intensity in the sentence, such as “Paleng manis ee” or “It is really sweet”.
Social Role
The relationships which people have with each other when they are interacting are actually
negotiable, and they will create roles as the situation or the discourse make claim to equality,
inequality, solidarity, or detachment (Johnstone, 2008, p.139). People create roles for one another
and reinforce the difference between roles as they speak in ways their roles require (p.141). In
some situations, a person finds his or herself in more than one role which means that he or she will
have to negotiate about the language he or she has to use (p.140). For example, a mother who
works as a teacher will have to negotiate her language by considering her role since she has to
teach her daughter who is also one of her students. Thus, speakers assign roles to other participants,
or “position” through the way they talk and the way they categorize their audiences.
METHODS
In this research, the writer used qualitative approach. The key instrument of this research
was the writer herself. The source of data of this study was all the dialogue lines spoken by all of
the participants in the meeting. The data of this research were the interruptions and the tokens
which were produced by all of the participants in the meeting of Mollucan Students Fellowship in
Petra Christian University. The writer applied several steps in collecting the data. First, the writer
recorded the meeting once, which was on September 10th, 2012 in order to get the data. Second, the
writer watched the recording in order to understand the plot of the meeting. Next, she transcribed
the dialogue lines which occurred in the meeting. Then, the writer gave the numbering system of
the data since she would differentiate the interruptions spoken by the chairperson and the members.
Therefore, she applied two digits numbering system: 1.1, it indicates that the data was spoken by
the chairperson and the first interruption. At last, the writer began analyzing the data.
The writer used three tables (Table 1., Table 2., and Table 3.). Table 1. illustrated the
interruptions spoken by each participant.
Table 1. The Analysis of Interruptions Produced by the Chairperson/Members*
The Functions of Interruption
No.
Interruption
Translation
Note:
Comp. : Completing
D
: Disagreeing
CR
: Correcting
Token
s
SC
EC
Analysis
SC
Comp
D
EC
CR
Others
: Seeking Clarification
: Ending Conversation
The writer classified and analyzed the functions of interruption based on the theory
proposed by Wardhaugh (1985), and mentioned the tokens which occurred in the meeting based on
the supporting theory proposed by Tjia (1992). The table would be applied for the interruptions
produced by the chairperson and the members. Table 2. consists of the percentage of occurrences
of the functions of interruptions:
Table 2. The Percentage of the Functions of Interruptions Produced by the
Chairperson/Members
206
Percentage of Occurrences
(%)
The Function of
Interruption
No.
1.
Seeking Clarification
2.
Correcting
3.
Completing
4.
Disagreeing
5.
Ending Conversation
6.
Others
Total percentage
To calculate the percentage of each function of interruption, the writer applied the formula
as follows:
The frequency of each function of interruption
A =
X 100%
Total frequency of interruption done by the chairperson
Table 3. to summarize the percentage of tokens produced by the chairperson or the
members.
Table 3. The Percentage of Tokens Produced by the Chairperson/Members
No.
Percentage of
Occurrences
(%)
Token
Total percentage
In calculating the percentage of each token, the writers also applied the same formula as
calculating the percentage of each interruption.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The Tokens Used by the Chairperson to Interrupt the Members
The writer found out that there were 19 (nineteen) kinds of tokens which were produced by
the chairperson in the meeting. The details of the findings about the tokens could be seen in the
following table:
Table 4. The Percentage of Tokens Produced by the Chairperson
No.
1
2
3
Percentage of
Occurrences
(%)
Token
Hiii
Iyo/Iya
Seng
17.3%
15.4%
11.53%
207
4
Jang/Jangan
5
Oh
6
Tapi
7
Yang
8
Ssssst!
9
Sabar/Sabar dolo
10
Ha!
11
Jadi
12
Weee
13
Kayaknya
14
Lalu
15
Kalo
16
Eee
17
Apa ni
18
Lho
19
Kan
Total frequency
5.8%
5.8%
5.8%
3.8%
3.8%
3.8%
3.8%
1.92%
1.92%
1.92%
1.92%
1.92%
1.92%
1.92%
1.92%
1.92%
100 %
The findings showed that the tokens used the most by the chairperson are “Hiii” with the
total frequencies 17.3%. “Iyo/Iya” is the second most popular tokens produced by the chairperson
with the total frequencies 15,4%, and the third is “Seng” with 11.53%. The least used tokens are
“Jang/Jangan”, “Oh”, and “Tapi” which have the same percentages, 5.8%. The second least are
“Yang”, “Ssssst!”, “Sabar/Sabar dolo”, and “Ha!” with 3.8%, and “Jadi”, “Weee”, “Kayaknya”,
“Lalu”, “Kalo”, “Eee”, “Apa ni”, “Lho”, and “Kan” are tokens used by the chairperson with the
lowest frequencies, 1.92%.
The Functions of the Interruptions Used by the Chairperson of Mollucan Students
Fellowship
There were the interruptions produced by the chairperson in which mostly are “other
functions” with 58.75%, and the least are “seeking clarification” and “correcting” with 5% each.
The details of the findings about the functions of the interruption and the percentage could be seen
in the following table:
Table 5. The Percentage of the Functions of Interruptions Produced by the
Chairperson
No.
Percentage of Occurrences
(%)
The Function of
Interruption
1.
Others
58.75%
2.
Completing
15%
3.
Disagreeing
4.
Seeking Clarification
5.
Correcting
6.
Ending Conversation
Total percentage
8.75%
6.25%
6.25%
5%
100%
208
“Other” functions of interruptions consist of “Making conclusion”, “Making decision”,
“Giving information”, “Taking the floor”, “Giving comment”, and “Agreeing”. The token which
was used by the chairperson in “Making Conclusion” was “Jadi”. There were three tokens which
were produced by the chairperson in interruption to make decision, such as “Oh”, “Kalo”, “Seng”,
and “Lalu”, and “Ha!”. The chairperson produced tokens such as “Hiii”, “Weee”, “Kayaknya”,
“Kan”, and “Lho” to interrupt the members in giving information. The tokens which occurred in
taking the floor were “Sabar dolo”, “Hiii”, and “Eee”. To interrupt the member(s) in giving
comment, the chairperson produced the tokens, such as “Hiii”.
In interrupting the member(s) in agreeing, the chairperson produced only two tokens but it
had similar meaning, which were “Iyo” and “Iya” (“Yes”). Morever, when the chairperson
interrupted the member(s) to complete what member(s)’ saying, she only produced one token,
“Tapi” or “But”. The tokens which were produced to interrupt the member(s) when the chairperson
disagreed were “Seng”, “Jangan”, and “Tapi”. Also, the chairperson interrupted the member(s)
using token “yang” and “Hiii” to seek clarification. In correcting the member(s), the chairperson
produced tokens, such as “Maksudnya” and “Tapi”. Two tokens were usually produced by the
chairperson in interrupting the member(s) to end conversation, such as “Sssst!” and “Heee!”.
The Tokens Used by the Members to Interrupt the Chairperson
The writer found out that there were thirteen kinds of tokens which were produced by the
members in the meeting. The details of the findings about the tokens could be seen in the following
table:
Table 6. The Percentage of Tokens Produced by the Members
No.
Percentage of
Occurrences
(%)
Token
1
Seng
2
Hiii
3
Oh
4
Yang
5
Iya/Iyo
6
Wee
7
Berarti
8
Lalu
9
Itu lho
10
Jadi
11
Tapi
12
Maksudnya
13
Eee
Total Percentage
17.9%
14.3%
14.3%
10.7%
10.7%
7.14%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
100 %
The findings showed that the token used the most by the members is “Seng” with the total
frequencies 17.9%. “Hiii” and “Oh” are the second most popular token produced by the members
with the total frequencies 14.3%, and the third are “Yang” and “Iya/Iyo” with 10.7%. The least
used token are “Berarti”, “Lalu”, “Itu lho”, “Jadi”, “Tapi”, “Maksudnya”, and “Eee” with 3.6%.
The Functions of the Interruptions Used by the Members of Mollucan Students Fellowship
The interruption mostly used by the member(s) is “Other” functions with 63.81%, and the
least is “Disagreeing” with percentage 3.44%. “Ending Conversation” did not happen in the
interruptions produced by the member (s). The details of the findings about the functions of the
interruption and the percentage could be seen in the following table:
209
Table 7. The Percentage of the Functions of Interruptions Produced by the Members
No.
The Function of
Interruption
Percentage of Occurrences
(%)
1.
Others
63.81%
2.
Completing
15.51%
3.
Seeking Clarification
8.62%
4.
Correcting
8.62%
5.
Diagreeing
3.44%
Total Percentage
100%
Other functions of interruptions produced by the member(s) are giving information, joking,
giving comment, giving suggestion, and agreeing. When the member(s) interrupted the chairperson
to give information, he/she produced tokens, such as “Oh”, “Lalu”, and “Hiii”. When joking, the
member(s) produced token, such as “Seng”. The token which was produced by the member(s) to
give comment was “Iyo”. In addition, the tokens which were produced by the member(s) to give
suggestion were “Hiii”, “Tapi”, and “Maksudnya”. The tokens which were occurred in the meeting
to agree with the chairperson were “Iyo”, “Jadi”, and “Oh”.
In completing the utterances of the chairperson, the member(s) used token “Weee”.
Meanwhile, “Berarti”, “Eee”, “Yang” were the tokens which were produced by the member(s) in
seeking clarification. The member(s) produced tokens, such as “Seng” and “Iyo” to interrupt the
chairperson to correct what she said previously. The member(s) produced only one token, which
was “Seng” to show his/her disagreement toward the chairperson’s statement.
Interpretation of Overall Findings
The tokens which were produced by the chairperson were more various than the
member(s). It can be interpreted that these different numbers and various tokens occurred because
it was affected by the social role which the chairperson has. The chairperson was the one who
controlled the turn-taking in the meetings because her role was higher than the members. It means
that she had more power to talk, especially to interrupt the members. She had more power to talk or
interrupt; therefore, she produced more various tokens compared to the members.
The variety of tokens and language (Ambonese) which were produced by both the
chairperson and the members because both parties were in less formal group discussion and they
have the same ethnicity which made the mother tongue (Ambonese as the main language) come up
in the discussion. However, tokens such as “Lho” and “Itu lho” are actually not typical Ambonese
tokens but they occurred in the meeting. It might happen because that the participants are
influenced by the language where they are living now, Surabaya.
In addition, the findings showed that one token could be used to interrupt in any function.
Token “Oh” could be used to make decision, give information, correct the previous utterance, and
agree with what the previous speaker said. Token “Hiii” could be used in some functions, such as
giving information, giving comments, and seeking clarification. “Jangan” or “Jang” were tokens
used to interrupt other participants in order to show disagreement and give comments.
The writer interpreted that the “Other” functions of interruption done by the chairperson
were different from the member(s) because it was also influenced by the different social roles
between two of them. The chairperson produced “Making decision”, “Making conclusion”,
“Taking the floor”, even “Ending Conversation” as the functions of the interruptions because the
chairperson had more power than the member(s) in the meeting. On the other hand, the member(s)
produced “Giving suggestion” and “Joking”. Also, they did not produce “ending conversation”
when interrupting the chairperson. It can be because their roles as members influenced them to
210
have less control than the chairperson. Instead of taking the floor or ending the conversation, the
member(s) interrupted the chairperson to give suggestion which means that the member(s) was
being supportive or cooperative toward the chairperson. Both parties mostly produced supportive
interruptions, apart from “taking the floor” and “ending conversation” produced by the chairperson.
It might happen because the majority of the participants in the meeting are females. According to
Coates (1996) cited in Ersoy (2008, p.21), female speakers “generally tend to want connection with
others, and to feel close through getting and giving information, emphaty, and support in
conversation”. Since most of the participants are females, they tend to be supportive by showing
their agreements and elaborating the conversation in the meeting which is in line with the theory of
Coates (1996).
CONCLUSION
From the explanation above, the writer concludes that social role influences the
chairperson to produce more various tokens to use in interrupting in order to hold the floor while
the members had fewer tokens to use in interrupting the chairperson. From the three highest
functions of interruptions produced by the chairperson and the members, both parties showed the
attitude of being supportive when interrupting each others as it is in line with the theory of Coates
(1996) cited in Ersoy (2008, p.21). The writer suggests that other students can conduct a similar
research with different object of investigation as the comparison for this study. The writer suggests
a research on a study of discourse markers in interruptions with different social group and gender.
In this case, there will be a finding about which gender with what discourse markers and functions
will be used in doing interruption.
Hopefully, this research will give another contribution for readers in understanding the
functions of interruptions which were produced by the Mollucan students in the fellowship
meeting. The writer also hopes that this research would be useful for further research in the
different contexts and situations.
REFERENCES
Ersoy, S. (2008).Men compete, women collaborate. Kristianstad: Kristianstad University
Heritage, J. and Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action. Malden: Blackwell Publishing
Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse analysis. Malden: Blackwell Publishing
Muller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing Co
Schiffrin, D. (2003). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Stenstrom, A. (1994). An introduction to spoken interaction. London: Longman
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand. New York: Quill
Tjia, J. (1992). Cakalele: Maluku Research Journal Vol. 3. Manoa: University of Hawaii
Wardhaugh, R. (1985). How conversation works. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
211